Monthly Archives: January 2011

I respect geoff more than words can say, and ND is a powerhouse, but I think I have to respectfully disagree.

It seems to me that it was seriously intended that people of good character and strong principle would stand for office here in the republic. While it is reasonable to expect that these candidates should be able to speak intelligently about the issues that they will face if elected, policy is only part of the picture. For the Framers to establish the government they did, they necessarily understood that it meant that our elected officials would not be drawn from the same class or group of “experts”. They understood that if it was going to work, than it wasn’t always going to be led by leaders of such stature as they; it is implicit in the lack of such qualifications for the offices set forth in the Constitution. They didn’t say that the candidate must have attended a certain school, or be from a certain professional background. Age, and in the case of the President, a natural-born citizen. That’s it.

Either by habit, or by subtle design, it seems to me that we have fallen into the pattern of only looking to either candidates with the “right” pedigree for a leader (such as an Ivy League education) or some sort of “policy” expertise or professional background, that by its very nature, hampers flexibility and a fresh approach to issues, because the candidate starts any analysis with the premises that have already been in use for decades inside the beltway. These premises tend to all lead to the same place, with the traditional distinction being either the fast track to ruin, or a slower path to the same destination, based on which lever you pull in the voting booth. I am at a loss to understand why this is acceptable. We wouldn’t accept this in any other part of American life.

New technologies and new advances come because we accept the input from people in different settings and walks of life, and the different backgrounds and the fresh perspectives are what drive ingenuity. So why do we accept the limits that others would place on us, by telling us that this woman is too dumb, or too inexperienced, or too provincial to possibly perform the duties of President? If these were legitimate limits, than Abe Lincoln would have been an impossibly irredeemable candidate, and while he did some things that do not set well with me as a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, I don’t see how that takes away from his character or leadership ability. Was he polarizing? Yes. Was his candidacy divisive? Hell yes. But he refused to let others define him, and I see that in Governor Palin, as well. What ever definition the media places on her, it is the consumer who decides if that means anything.

In my short life, I have never seen any political figure treated the way she has been. And I have never witnessed anyone so relentlessly pursued in private life. And it seems to me that it isn’t because they want us to pick her because they think they can beat her. I think it is because she is the opposite of everything they hold dear, and they know it, and that she represents the best chance we will have in a long time to break their hold on power.

There is a real opportunity here. For the first time, maybe in years, we, the poor saps who actually cast the votes, have the chance to actually vote for character and conservatism as a clear alternative to a mediocre candidate with all the right credentials and all the same answers that have been applied before. It requires us to have the courage to vote for that candidate, rather than seeking the safe choice with the candidate who is ‘electible’. ‘Electible’ means someone who fits someone else’s criteria, and not our own. Yes, you might get that coveted “w” in the column on election day, but that is playing checkers against opponents who are playing chess. They’ll sacrifice pawns, if it helps to get them to the greater goal. (see Clinton, Hillary.) I think the fact that a community organizer with two (TWO!) biographies by 40 and a paper-thin resume’ and history of voting “present” in the White House is evidence of that.

I don’t want regimented thinking in the Oval Office anymore. I don’t want any more Ivy League lawyers who believe that nothing is beyond their expertise. I want someone who has integrity. I want someone who doesn’t shy away from a fight, and refuses to have other people tell them HOW to think. I want someone who is willing to lead not one segment of society, but our entire nation. If Sarah is the best candidate to do this, then she gets my vote, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to just let the self-appointed cognoscenti decide for me, nor am I willing to let myself be bullied by the self-appointed deciders on our side of the aisle either.

Roger Stockham, 63, who flew 600 combat helicopter missions in Vietnam, is behind bars in Michigan after he drove from his home in California last week and parked a car with a trunk full of explosives outside the Islamic Center of America, authorities said.

Acting on a tip, Dearborn police thwarted the alleged plot by arresting Stockham outside the sprawling religious center, one of the largest mosques in North America. At the time, 500 members were attending a funeral at the mosque.

According to federal records, Stockham pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to federal charges stemming from the case in Vermont in 2004. That included threatening the president, mailing threatening communications, threatening by use of the telephone to use explosives, and threatening witnesses.

A psychiatric examination found that Stockham suffered from bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and personality disorder with anti-social features.

In the Vermont incident, he told authorities at the time of his arrest at a Veterans Affairs Department complex in Colchester that his minivan was full of explosives. A search found no explosives.

Before the arrest, Stockham called a local paper twice to say he was going to explode bombs in the neighborhood. In one call, he identified himself as “Hem Ahadin,” saying he was “a local Muslim terrorist on a roll.”

He ranted against the VA, the FBI and Bush, largely because of the things the president had said about Iraq in a speech earlier in the week.

According to affidavit filed in U.S. District Court, Stockham threatened to carry out “jihad,” or holy war, against the VA office in White River, Vt.

Ah- so he’s another deranged lefty and possible Muslim convert, emphasis on deranged.

In recent weeks, a California VFW post was in the process of removing Stockham as a member after several recent incidents, said a post official.

Four months ago, Stockham was suspended for 60 days for smoking marijuana at Post 5477 in Imperial Beach, said Richard Schmitz, co-chairman of the post’s house committee.

After he returned from suspension, Stockham referred to the black post commander with a racial slur, said Schmitz.

Schmitz, who has known Stockham for four years, described him as a loner who, though he appeared at the post frequently, rarely socialized with other members.

“He’s a nut,” said Schmitz. “He flipped out lately.”

And lefty bloggers had such high hopes…

Think Progress reacted by playing up some rare examples of anti-Muslim hate crimes, and ending with dark hints that anti-Muslim rhetoric may have influenced Stockham’s actions, naming NY Congressman, Peter King specifically:

And while there’s no indication that Stockham was influenced by any political figure or faction, his actions are by no means isolated. As more and morepundits and politiciansencourage paranoia and vilifyMuslimAmericans rather than responsibly speaking out against it, they cultivate an Islamophobic atmosphere of hate that make incidents like this more likely. After all, with the House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY) preaching that “80 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by radical Imams,” it seems only a matter of time before someone like Stockham offers a “radical” solution.

First comment:

Congratulations Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity, etc.
You are finally getting idiots like this to carry out your message.

LOL. Because Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity, etc. are so known for encouraging listeners to threaten President Bush’s life. No? It was the left who did that, you say?

TPM Muckrakeralso played up anti Muslim hate crimes angle (did I mention how rare these are compared to other types of hate crimes) and linked the plot to anti-Muslim rhetoric:

The Islamic Center of America, said Walid, is the largest mosque in North America. It has faced threats in the past. In 2004, two New York men sent threatening e-mails to the mosque. They were both charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 247, which makes it a crime to “intentionally obstruct[ ], by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempt[ ] to do so,” and plead guilty in 2005. The mosque was also vandalized when someone wrote “9/11 Terrorists Go Home” on the side of the building around 2007, Walid said.

Walid said that he thinks that anti-Muslim rhetoric played a role in the incident.

“I believe it is a mixture of the two, between a person being mentally unstable within a society context of a lot of anti-Muslim rhetoric floating around. People can be on the edge and when they’re exposed to enough negative information about a group of people… it may be enough to push them over the edge,” Walid said.

Except it turns out that that Stockham (or Hem Ahadin, as he likes to be called) apparently considered himself some sort of Muslim terrorist, which of course doesn’t explain why he would target a mosque.

The whole thing is just weird.

But I’m gonna go out on a limb here, and say it’s doubtful that Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity, and Peter King had anything to do with it.

Twenty-five people were arrested for trespassing Sunday as hundreds protested outside a strategy session of conservative political donors hosted by brothers David and Charles Koch at a resort near Palm Springs, CA authorities said.

The demonstration had been arranged with authorities, but some protesters crossed the street to the entrance of the Rancho Las Palmas Resort where they were met by deputies in riot gear, Riverside County Deputy Melissa Nieburger said. They were arrested without a struggle, booked at Indio Jail, and released.

According to Reuters, the rally was organized by the liberal group Common Cause, an anti-conservative group that charges the Koch brothers of influencing politics with their money. It was also sponsored by the leftist group Code Pink, whose founder Jodie Evans was reportedly one of those arrested. Trumpeting the message of those groups, rally speakers accused the brothers of being “anarchists with a checkbook”.

George Soros and a branch of the Tides Foundation are listed as donors in the most recent annual report listed on Common Cause’s website.

Now for the Obama connection: Big Governmentreports Occidental College professor Peter Dreier, who served on the Obama campaign’s urban policy task force and as an adviser to ACORN, used his position with the university to recruit activists to protest the Koch Bros’ meeting:

He also encourages people to attend a panel discussion before the protest featuring, among others, UC Irvine Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, U.C. Berekely Professor and former Obama adviser Robert Reich, and Van Jones.

The top activists on the left aren’t just confined to Soros-backed fringe groups like Code Pink or Media Matters; they’re often the professors we pay thousands to teach our children. And it’s from their perch atop the ivory towers of academia that they recruit and reeducate the next crop of activists.

…while Soros money and Koch money are superficially equivalent, there’s a crucial distinction. If we take both sides at their word, Soros and other liberal donors spend in order to impose their preferences on others while the Kochs and other free-market donors spend in an effort to be left alone to buy and sell with willing parties.

The moral difference is this: Only one side is trying to compel others to conform to its preferences.

Consider how each side profits from its favored policies: The Kochs benefit if government takes less of their profit. To be sure, they could pocket the difference and not make charitable contributions to the poor. In moral terms, that would be selfish or just plain greedy.

Soros and his wealthy supporters profit from the government taxing or threatening to tax the children of a business owner. That’s the moral equivalent of mugging.

The object of Olbermann’s disaffection was one Ed Driscoll who was quite pleased by the former “Countdown” host’s departure from MSNBC:

I participated in more than 10 combat missions in Vietnam, so I know a mission is not a war. Someone should have told that to Olbermann, as he demonstrated his ignorance by equating the two for years on his show.

He would end by saying it has been so many days since President Bush declared “Mission Accomplished’’ in Iraq. Bush never said that. Olbermann was referring to a sign on an aircraft carrier that said “Mission Accomplished.’’ The president declared an end to major combat operations, and therefore the aircraft carrier was headed home.

In Bush’s speech, he said that much work has yet to be done. The sign was for the brave people who had completed their mission.

Olbermann can take the money and run. I don’t care where.

Mr. Driscoll’s letter was short and to the point. And it very effectively eviscerated one of the left’s favorite talking points about George W. Bush. Why a megalomaniac like Olbermann would want to draw attention to it on Twitter is anyone’s guess, but it was retweeted over a 100 times by his brain-dead followers so I guess he knows his fans well.

Like this:

Here’s the real problem, Palin advocates. NiceDeb says she’s wondering whether Palin is truly electable: her fans are passionate, but so are her critics. Can she tip the balance?

Not without full-fledged support from the conservative base, she can’t. And she doesn’t have it yet. For instance, she doesn’t have my support. As I mentioned in the thread below, I like a lot of things about Sarah Palin. But I’m not convinced that she’s Presidential material, particularly with regard to her grasp of policy.

So, here’s your challenge. Convince me. Explain to me why she is in fact a qualified candidate for President – why her understanding of policy is strong and coherent, and why her vision for America is practical and promising. Or, if you’d rather, explain why it doesn’t matter. But don’t waste your time talking about how:

“She’s the only real conservative”

“She’s genuine and a straight shooter”

“She’s tough and strong”

“She gets things done”

I already know and appreciate these things. My concern lies with her handle on policy. I’ll give you an example.